The next exceptionable feature in the Message [from President Jefferson], is the proposal to abolish all restriction on naturalization, arising from a previous residence.2 In this the President is not more at variance with the concurrent maxims of all commentators on popular governments, than he is with himself. The Notes on Virginia are in direct contradiction to the Message, and furnish us with strong reasons against the policy now recommended. The passage alluded to is here presented: Speaking of the population of America, Mr. Jefferson there says, “Here I will beg leave to propose a doubt. The present desire of America, is to produce rapid population, by as great importations of foreigners as possible. But is this founded in good policy?”3 “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale, against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers, by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society, to harmonize as much as possible, in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles: Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others, derived from natural right and reason.

To these, nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans, thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners, to our present numbers, would produce a similar effect here.” Thus wrote Mr. Jefferson in 17814—Behold the reverse of the medal. The Message of the President contains the following sentiments, “A denial of citizenship under a residence of 14 years, is a denial to a great proportion of those who ask it, & controls a policy pursued from their first settlement, by many of these states, and still believed of consequence to their prosperity. And shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives, from distress, that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? Might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen, be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortune permanently with us?”

But if gratitude can be allowed to form an excuse for inconsistency in a public character, in The Man of the People; a strong plea of this sort may be urged in behalf of our President. It is certain that had the late election been decided entirely by native citizens, had foreign auxiliaries been rejected on both sides, the man who ostentatiously vaunts that the doors of public honor and confidence have been burst open to him, would not now have been at the head of the American nation. Such a proof then of virtuous discernment in the oppressed fugitives, had an imperious claim on him to a grateful return, and without supposing any very uncommon share of self-love; would naturally be a strong reason for a revolution in his opinions.

The pathetic and plaintive exclamations by which the sentiment is enforced, might be liable to much criticism, if we are to consider it in any other light, than as a flourish of rhetoric. It might be asked in return, does the right to asylum or hospitality carry with it the right to suffrage and sovereignty? And what indeed was the courteous reception which was given to our forefathers, by the savages of the wilderness? When did these humane and philanthropic savages exercise the policy of incorporating strangers among themselves, on their first arrival in the country? When did they admit them into their huts, to make part of their families, and when did they distinguish them by making them their sachems? Our histories and traditions have been more than apocryphal, if any thing like this kind, and gentle treatment was really lavished by the much-belied savages upon our thankless forefathers. But the remark occurs, had it all been true, prudence inclines to trace the history farther, and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy? And who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a useful lesson might be drawn from this very reflection.

But we may venture to ask what does the President really mean, by insinuating that we treat aliens coming to this country, with inhospitality? Do we not permit them quietly to land on our shores? Do we not protect them equally with our own citizens, in their persons and reputation; in the acquisition and enjoyment of property? Are not our Courts of justice open for them to seek redress of injuries? And are they not permitted peaceably to return to their own country whenever they please, and to carry with them all their effects? What then means this worse than idle declamation?

The impolicy of admitting foreigners to an immediate and unreserved participation in the right of suffrage, or in the sovereignty of a Republic, is as much a received axiom as any thing in the science of politics, and is verified by the experience of all ages. Among other instances, it is known, that hardly any thing contributed more to the downfall of Rome, than her precipitate communication of the privileges of citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy at large. And how terribly was Syracuse scourged by perpetual seditions, when, after the overthrow of the tyrants, a great number of foreigners were suddenly admitted to the rights of citizenship? Not only does ancient but modern, and even domestic history furnish evidence of what may be expected from the dispositions of foreigners, when they get too early footing in a country. Who wields the sceptre of France, and has erected a Despotism on the ruins of a Republic? A foreigner. Who rules the councils of our own ill-fated, unhappy country? And who stimulates persecution on the heads of its citizens, for daring to maintan an opinion, and for exercising the rights of suffrage? A foreigner!5 Where is the virtuous pride that once distinguished Americans? Where the indignant spirit which in defence of principle, hazarded a revolution to attain that independence now insidiously attacked?

"When you have been dead long enough, you are allowed to change your mind."

You apparently also change your ethnicity.

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Five days ago, Trump scandalized the press by denying them access to his dinner with his family! Shocking! Today, Trump scandalized the press again by giving the press too much access to the appointment process! Unbelievable! Trump told the press he might make some appointments on Sunday … after being asked if he might make appointments on Sunday! Outrageous! Trump said nice things about a potential nominee! I never! He shook the hands of nominees! It’s a circus! There are chandeliers in one of his buildings! Pearls … clutching!

President-elect Donald J. Trump has turned the vital, but normally inscrutable, process of forming a government into a Trump-branded, made-for-television spectacle, parading his finalists for top administration positions this weekend before reporters and the world.

The two days unfolded like a pageant, with the many would-be officials striding up the circular driveway at Trump National Golf Club here, meeting Mr. Trump below three glass chandeliers at the entrance and shaking hands while facing the cameras. To build suspense, Mr. Trump offered teasing hints about coming announcements.

“I think so,” he said about whether he would make any appointments on Sunday. “I think so. It could very well happen.”

…

Outside the club’s three-story farmhouse on Saturday, the president-elect poked a finger in General Mattis’s direction and called him “a great man.” The next morning, at 8:39, Mr. Trump gushed again, this time on Twitter, calling him “very impressive” and saying he was “a true general’s general!”

Your sarcasm is quite surprising, since you claim that factsareimportant .

There is a reason for NYT journalist alerting public about chandeliers in Donald's Berghof compound.

Maybe that means nothing to you, but some of us that undeniably have very deep and complex sense of History - which wasn't always gracious to our ancestors - that three chandeliers have much eerier meaning.

Do you have even slightest clue about who else was saluting his guests under chandeliers ?!:

In his closing remarks, Rabbi Hier shared the poignant and heartfelt story of Mr. Wiesenthal’s wish for his 90th Birthday.

“One day Simon called and said that he would like to celebrate his 90th birthday with a few friends in Vienna. It was at a time when he could no longer travel and his wife was bedridden.

I asked him where he would like to celebrate.

He said, ‘I have one unfulfilled wish, to have a party at the Imperial Hotel.’

Before I had a chance to ask why the Imperial, he told me that it was Hitler’s favorite hotel and that both he and Himmler had permanent suites there.

They built enormous bunkers beneath the hotel, which still exist today, because Hitler thought that this would serve as an ideal headquarters from where he could conduct the Second World War.

During the Third Reich, it would have been unthinkable, Simon said, for a Jew to be seen at the Imperial Hotel.

‘And I want to make sure,’ he said, ‘that all the taboos of the Third Reich are broken and that the record of this hotel would affirm that Simon Wiesenthal celebrated his 90th birthday here with a Kosher dinner.’

On the night of the dinner, when the band played a favorite Yiddish song, ‘Belz, Mein Shtele Belz’ (Belz, My Little Shtetl Belz), he looked up at the ceiling, turned to me, and said:

‘You see even the chandeliers are shaking because this is the first time they have ever heard such music here.

Let the record read,’ he said, ‘that Hitler is no longer here, but even in the Imperial Hotel, Jews are still alive and still singing.’”

President-elect Donald J. Trump has turned the vital, but normally inscrutable, process of forming a government into a Trump-branded, made-for-television spectacle, parading his finalists for top administration positions this weekend before reporters and the world.

Love him or hate him, they come from far and wide to kiss the ring.
1) Everybody loves a winner.
2) "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse” -Osama Bin Ladin

The problem of course is that the open borders fanatics don’t care about history or facts. Just like they have appropriated the Statue Of Liberty into the Statue of Unlimited Immigration, the real history means nothing to them. Tell them that the Statue was built in honor of US independence and the rights of Americans to run their own government which includes immigration and they will simply ignore you and quote instead that rather bad poem which was not even attached to the outside of the Statue until a decade later

Most Americans now firmly believe that the Emma Lazarus doggerel is an excerpt from the US Constitution. Or, if it's not, it surely should be. Another 'accomplishment' of decades of MSM propaganda.

Born on July 22, 1849 in New York City to a wealthy sugar refining family of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish descent, Emma Lazarus was the poet who wrote "The New Colossus." Aside from writing, Lazarus was also involved in charitable work for refugees. At Ward's Island, she worked as an aide for Jewish immigrants who had been detained by immigration officials.

After its initial popularity however, the sonnet slowly faded from public memory. It was not until 1901, 17 years after Lazarus's death, that Georgina Schuyler, a friend of hers, found a book containing the sonnet in a bookshop and organized a civic effort to resurrect the lost work. Her efforts paid off and in 1903, words from the sonnet were inscribed on a plaque and placed on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

Didn’t Hamilton once advocate monarchy within the US itself? I guess he wanted to offer the “throne” to Gen. Washington? And here he is denouncing Jefferson’s open immigration policies on an anti-monarchy basis?

All public figures are hypocrites. All public figures flip-flop. What’s the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone? Who will it convince other than those who are already very anti-immigration?

All public figures are hypocrites. All public figures flip-flop. What’s the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone? Who will it convince other than those who are already very anti-immigration?

It is an Alinskyist "make them live by their own rules" kind of thing.

Not just on the Alt Right, there some sensible thinkers on the 'Dissident Left,' who use the comparison:

On the other hand, the out of control issue of immigration which Trump raised at the outset of his campaign remains a burning spear flung through the heart of all we stand for in America. If we fail to gain an equitable solution to this abrogation of our precious rule of law we are destined, as happened long ago with the Roman Empire, to a catabolic decline in power and prosperity. [...]
These constituencies include businesses that want more cheap labor and the ethnic and religious institutions that look to increase their numbers and power. For instance, Pope Francis just implied that anything short of keeping our borders wide open is immoral! His and other wanton self-interested hypocritical plays for power have long been grinding at the hearts of those who voted Mr. Trump into office.
[...]
Former US Navy officer, banker and venture capitalist, Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC., has spent over 40 years working for women’s reproductive health as a board member and/or officer of numerous family planning organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International and Ipas. Yale under graduate, NYU MBA. He is the author of From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013.

Fascinating. Hamilton was woke to the “Rome declined and fell due to immigration” trope, now dominant on the Alt Right.

Indeed. Enoch Powell once quoted Juvenal's lines to good effect:

I cannot abide, Quirites, a Rome of Greeks; and yet what fraction of our dregs comes from Greece? The Syrian Orontes has long since poured into the Tiber, bringing with it its lingo and its manners, its flutes and its slanting harp-strings

But it seems to me that Juvenal's lines are better suited to Anglo-America than Britain. Simply swap Hispanic for Greek, then note what a small fraction actually comes from Iberia, rivers of Amerind blood having long since overwhelmed the Spanish rivulet:

I cannot abide, Quirites, an America of Hispanics; and yet what fraction of our dregs comes from Iberia? Amerind rivers have long since overwhelmed the Spanish rivulet, bringing with it its lingo and its manners, its flutes and its slanting harp-strings

Not really, he referred to the extension of citizenship to Rome's Italic allies after the Social war which wasn't really about immigration; alt-righters (like some early 20th century historians like Tenney Frank) claim Rome declined during the imperial era due to immigration from the Near East and alleged racial degeneration.
But very interesting piece, it's surprising in a way how modern and readable it still is (had the same impression when reading Gibbon).

In practical terms, Hamilton best resembles a 2oth Century proponent of White Australia. Immigrants should be white and overwhelmingly from the British Isles. This worked very well until it was abandoned, not unlike the similar effect in America before 1965.

It is a fallacy that the White Australia policy ensured immigrants were "overwhelmingly from the British Isles". They just had to be white, and as an entirely forseeable result were overwhelmingly from the failed parts of Europe that were least attractive to stay in - exactly the sort of immigrants that Hamilton warns against. An obvious result is that the principal criminal secret societies of the Mediterranean, the Mafia etc, all have flourishing Australian branches. Australia also admitted what can only be described as human vermin - SS war criminals from eastern Europe fleeing justice.

Frankly, bringing up Curtis Yarvin and Steve in the same sentence exhibits a want of judgement or decency.

Everything that Steve represents -- basic common sense, empirical and theoretical argument, careful assertion -- is lacking entirely in that blowhard and automatic contrarian Curtis Yarvin. Their occasional agreement on one point or another is almost accidental, given their differences in methodology.

Those of us who have developed a taste for the well argued truth, even in its more disagreeable manifestations, will never turn to a Curtis Yarvin.

1/ Since the Federalists didn’t win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

2/ There’s a practical contradiction between taking more western land (which most Americans approved of), and opposing immigration.

1/ Since the Federalists didn’t win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

Probably not. Cf the Immigration Act of 1924:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

2/ There’s a practical contradiction between taking more western land (which most Americans approved of), and opposing immigration.

Not really. The native population was growing at a rapid rate. Cf Benjamin Franklin's Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc. :

Hamilton is talking about naturalization. And the Federal government can set all kinds of limits and restrictions on that process. Cf the naturalization law of 1790:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

“I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?”

This is where I feel Steve’s arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants

Yes, we know how it turned out. Almost 100 years of organized crime problems thanks to (Southern) Italian immigration leading to the formation of a Federal police force (FBI) that the Founders would have never countenanced. Institutionalized radicalism thanks to Eastern European Jewish immigration (also organized crime). And 150 years and counting- i.e. Terry McAuliffe's night of 10,000 pardons so that felons could vote for Her Highness this year- of political corruption and machine politics thanks to mass Irish immigration. Not saying that these ethnicities did not eventually fit in (or that in time we did not grow to love them) but in each case it was certainly with a cost.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants?

Let me count the ways:

Non-European immigration: Anglo-America has managed to absorb (oftentimes with great difficulty) European immigrants. So far, we’ve not had much success at absorbing large numbers of non-Europeans.

The Latin American Flood: Huge numbers of these non-Euro immigrants come from Mexico, a country which shares a border with the USA. And Mexico views large chunks of the USA (CA, Texas, etc) as Mexican territory. These conditions did not exist with immigrants from Europe.

The Multicultural incubus: Prior to 1965, our nation was ruled by a confident WASP elite. Immigrants were expected to absorb Anglo culture. Nowadays, our elites (cf JEB Bush) are craven and cringing traitors, eagerly telling immigrants that they should retain their native language and culture.

If one cannot rely upon racialist arguments, it's important and true to remember the economies of old probably necessitated vast amounts of low-skilled labor to expand. Low-skilled labor today is a net detractor economically, even more than it used to be because of our social welfare state.

As the IQ economy advances, increasing numbers of workers will be obsolete. Likewise, the IQ to master the skills necessary to succeed or even survive in the newer economies will push rightward along the IQ bell curve.

Because papist and fascist shared quite similar religion, culture, not to mention skin color with Americans? There was also lack of communications. If you decided to emigrate to United States you cut most ties with “Old Country”.

Now, thanks to the miracle of Internet you can share village gossip with people who stayed. And your cousin can ask you if you could marry your young daughter to him, so he also could move to United States.

There was also a large white, Anglo-Saxon majority that kept all this together. There was strong, confident culture that worked both as solvent of old and a glue. Now USA has global, modern values that above all cherish blessed diversity.

Better tell me the reason why you think present migration wave is going to be similar to old.

"But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. "
It is not clear what it means to say that mass immigration of white people who were not British or Dutch Protestants, as the founders of the USA were, worked out well. It seems so to the present population, but this population has been formed by mass "alien" immigration, and even Americans of founding-stock descent have been brought up to believe that the resulting composition of the USA is the best possible. Who can know what the people of the "Protestant Republic" would have thought of the USA of the 20th century?

That passage is rich for quote mining. Hamilton’s immigration views look like a fun topic to discuss with anyone who raves about the musical. Perhaps right after discussing how effective a charitable contribution of the amount a ticket cost could be.

The problem of course is that the open borders fanatics don’t care about history or facts. Just like they have appropriated the Statue Of Liberty into the Statue of Unlimited Immigration, the real history means nothing to them. Tell them that the Statue was built in honor of US independence and the rights of Americans to run their own government which includes immigration and they will simply ignore you and quote instead that rather bad poem which was not even attached to the outside of the Statue until a decade later

Frankly, bringing up Curtis Yarvin and Steve in the same sentence exhibits a want of judgement or decency.

Everything that Steve represents — basic common sense, empirical and theoretical argument, careful assertion — is lacking entirely in that blowhard and automatic contrarian Curtis Yarvin. Their occasional agreement on one point or another is almost accidental, given their differences in methodology.

Those of us who have developed a taste for the well argued truth, even in its more disagreeable manifestations, will never turn to a Curtis Yarvin.

Those of us who have developed a taste for the well argued truth, even in its more disagreeable manifestations, will never turn to a Curtis Yarvin.

Sounds like the voice of first-hand experience when it comes to blowhards.

You're not Yarvin's target audience. They like obscure allusions and roundabout arguments - let's them keep feeling smart while he talks them out of the obsolete opinions they were formerly employing to achieve that effect.

Didn't Hamilton once advocate monarchy within the US itself? I guess he wanted to offer the "throne" to Gen. Washington? And here he is denouncing Jefferson's open immigration policies on an anti-monarchy basis?

All public figures are hypocrites. All public figures flip-flop. What's the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone? Who will it convince other than those who are already very anti-immigration?

All public figures are hypocrites. All public figures flip-flop. What’s the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone? Who will it convince other than those who are already very anti-immigration?

It is an Alinskyist “make them live by their own rules” kind of thing.

Frankly, bringing up Curtis Yarvin and Steve in the same sentence exhibits a want of judgement or decency.

Everything that Steve represents -- basic common sense, empirical and theoretical argument, careful assertion -- is lacking entirely in that blowhard and automatic contrarian Curtis Yarvin. Their occasional agreement on one point or another is almost accidental, given their differences in methodology.

Those of us who have developed a taste for the well argued truth, even in its more disagreeable manifestations, will never turn to a Curtis Yarvin.

1/ Since the Federalists didn't win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

2/ There's a practical contradiction between taking more western land (which most Americans approved of), and opposing immigration.

1/ Since the Federalists didn't win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

2/ There's a practical contradiction between taking more western land (which most Americans approved of), and opposing immigration.

Steve, don’t you know schoolkids could g**gle “Hamilton” and stumble upon this stuff? Shame on you.

Didn’t Hamilton once advocate monarchy within the US itself? I guess he wanted to offer the “throne” to Gen. Washington? And here he is denouncing Jefferson’s open immigration policies on an anti-monarchy basis?

All public figures are hypocrites. All public figures flip-flop. What’s the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone? Who will it convince other than those who are already very anti-immigration?

Eppur si muove (And yet, you complain)…

1/ Since the Federalists didn’t win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

Why not? We can assume the Moon is made of green cheese, if we like.

1790:

Naturalization Act of 1790. The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character.

1802:

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802

Since Hamilton was parroting popular sentiment in 1802, and still didn’t win any national elections, can we assume that his love of Big Banks and Oligarchs torpedoed his career?

This is where I feel Steve’s arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

Hamilton was right. European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti. And global multiculti is now destroying the Republic.

And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition. The vast majority of European immigration was from countries that are doing very well for themselves today. The same is not true of global immigration.

And the European immigration was of a sort that would not radically alter the genetic composition of the population. I.e., it did not herald race-replacement, or bio-suicide. The opposite is true of global immigration.

"Since Hamilton was parroting popular sentiment in 1802, and still didn’t win any national elections, can we assume that his love of Big Banks and Oligarchs torpedoed his career?"

No, Hamilton was pandering ideology to his base. Remember, only those who were of direct British descendants were deemed "true" Americans. Do you have the golden pass? If not, feel free to deport yourself.

"Hamilton was right. European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti. And global multiculti is now destroying the Republic."

You are being your normal ignorant self. The United States in 1790 was already "European multicult". Moreover, these "huddled masses" enabled the formation of our industrial juggernaut by the 1800's. But, according to you, they didn't build it.

"And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition."

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"And the European immigration was of a sort that would not radically alter the genetic composition of the population. I.e., it did not herald race-replacement, or bio-suicide. The opposite is true of global immigration."

Another melodramatic moment on your part. As soon as Europeans set foot on the Americas by displacing the indigenous population and bringing in Africans, the genetic composition was cast in stone.

"I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?"

This is where I feel Steve's arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson's fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn't come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants

Yes, we know how it turned out. Almost 100 years of organized crime problems thanks to (Southern) Italian immigration leading to the formation of a Federal police force (FBI) that the Founders would have never countenanced. Institutionalized radicalism thanks to Eastern European Jewish immigration (also organized crime). And 150 years and counting- i.e. Terry McAuliffe’s night of 10,000 pardons so that felons could vote for Her Highness this year- of political corruption and machine politics thanks to mass Irish immigration. Not saying that these ethnicities did not eventually fit in (or that in time we did not grow to love them) but in each case it was certainly with a cost.

Why was Pence spending 850/head to see some cheeseball play? I won’t even spend 8 dollars to see the junk out of Hollywood.

His mistake was acting like one of those things that Trump bragged about grabbing, in response the Hamilton’s cast rant. He should have said that they have the right to speak their minds but that doesn’t mean that they are rational or intelligent human beings. Trump would have not been so gracious (he wasnt on Twitter) and that is why middle America elected him. Pence, with his good guy cucky ways repulsed me in his response.

Which is why patriots worthy of the name will pray for our new president's continued health and safety. Because, thanks to his pick for veep, should anything happen to the president we'll be right back where we started. Ann Coulter was right about the choice of Pence being a grievous error.

“Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles: Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others, derived from natural right and reason.”

This passage represents a clear difference of opinion regarding the extent of (white) participation in government. Hamilton thought that people are generally selfish; thus, there was a distrust of the common folk who were ill-equipped to handle the reins of governing, especially those from outside of Great Britain. He held the viewpoint citizenship privileges was based on birth, wealth, and status. That would mean the tens of millions of imports from Europe would not have been deemed of “good moral character” based on his standards. Hamilton was overtly concerned with the teeming masses from the bottom, specifically those not from England, Scotland, or Wales, as being particularly unfit for citizenship.

Remember, the Naturalization Act of 1790 also denied the right to naturalize “persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. Jefferson found this specific part as odious. He was of the belief citizenship was based on talent and virtue, that men were selfless and thus capable of self-government. Hence, his insistence that increasing numbers of men, in this case European, be allowed to enter our shores, with lower voting qualifications to increase political participation as citizen-agrarians.

Vox Day has made the argument that only the original colonists, specifically from Great Britain, are “true” Americans. Everyone one else is an invader. Science fiction writer Sarah Hoyt took exception, stating that despite being born in Portugal, she came to this nation, immersed herself with our culture, and considers herself an American on the basis of her conferred citizenship and status as a productive member of our society.

Another science fiction writer, John Wright, took exception to Day’s assertion…

“As the descendant of one of those Pennsylvania Dutch aliens of which the Founders spoke, I would say that my sympathies are more with Sarah Hoyt than with the savage redskin Vox Day in this case.

Vox Day has argued that representative democracy has proven itself by historical evidence inadequate when measured against direct democracy in its ability to resist corruption into an oligarchy.

On this ground he calls into question the Founding Fathers and derides those who accept the advice of the Founders as merely blind worshipers.

In this argument, his tactic is the opposite. Instead of looking at this historical evidence of when immigration has been successful and when not, he adopts a hypothetical posture that American is not a nation founded on a proposition, says she is alike a European nation in that the nation is interconnected and sustained by the shared connection of bloodlines and heredity. He quotes the Founding Fathers with approval in that case, asking us to accept their advice there.

Myself, I would say that at least some immigration was beneficial and organic to the nation: I regard myself as properly and entirely American, despite my immigrant background.

I would also say that other immigration has not been beneficial, and would agree both with Vox Day and with Sarah Hoyt in that case: for some enter with such numbers that they do not learn English and do not assimilate, and retain their own old ways, that they do not assent to the proposition, and do not have the moderate love of liberty necessary to maintain a Republican form of government.

The empirical approach to the argument would be to outline when the immigration has been beneficial and when not.

My question here is that if the problem is that members of other cultures cannot appreciate and will not support our republican form of government, on that grounds that it is the cultural artifact particular to the English speaking world, does that not mean that non-English immigration should be halted because and only because the incoming citizens do not agree to the proposition that makes the Federal government possible?

I would also be quicker to assent to the proposition that the several states, as Virginia versus New York (I have lived in both places) are like Old World nations, but that their mutual alliance which formed the federal government was quite clearly a proposition to which the states consented, bringing their people with them.

How does one square the proposition that America is not a propositional nation with the Federalist form of government?”

Fascinating. Hamilton was woke to the "Rome declined and fell due to immigration" trope, now dominant on the Alt Right.

Not just on the Alt Right, there some sensible thinkers on the ‘Dissident Left,’ who use the comparison:

On the other hand, the out of control issue of immigration which Trump raised at the outset of his campaign remains a burning spear flung through the heart of all we stand for in America. If we fail to gain an equitable solution to this abrogation of our precious rule of law we are destined, as happened long ago with the Roman Empire, to a catabolic decline in power and prosperity.
[...]
These constituencies include businesses that want more cheap labor and the ethnic and religious institutions that look to increase their numbers and power. For instance, Pope Francis just implied that anything short of keeping our borders wide open is immoral! His and other wanton self-interested hypocritical plays for power have long been grinding at the hearts of those who voted Mr. Trump into office.
[...]
Former US Navy officer, banker and venture capitalist, Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC., has spent over 40 years working for women’s reproductive health as a board member and/or officer of numerous family planning organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International and Ipas. Yale under graduate, NYU MBA. He is the author of From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013.

He said that “in God’s heart there are no enemies,” and chided those who “raise walls, build barriers and label people.” The comments were seen by some Vatican observers as a rebuke to calls by President-elect Donald J. Trump to build a border wall and to restrict Muslims from entering the United States.

Pope Francis did not single out any country, but he has expressed dismay over the harsh tone on immigration that Mr. Trump has taken.

Another threat to the Church is the illegal immigration control movement. If this movement succeeds, and what is perceived by Latin Americans and other governments as an escape valve is shut off, these governments would logically say, “Our demographic course cannot continue.” These governments would have little choice but to confront the Church and say, “If we are to survive as governments, then we must get serious about population growth control. Otherwise, we in Latin America are destined to become a sea of chaos. We, as Latin Americans, must make family planning and abortion services fully available and encourage their use.” Turning off the valve to illegal immigration is therefore a serious threat to the power of the Church.

In practical terms, Hamilton best resembles a 2oth Century proponent of White Australia. Immigrants should be white and overwhelmingly from the British Isles. This worked very well until it was abandoned, not unlike the similar effect in America before 1965.

The problem was that there wasn’t enough English people to populate the whole North American continent. So eventually they let Germans, Irish and so forth come in.

The French and Indian War opened up the vast Ohio River Valley. Before that, Franklin laid out the intellectual case for immigration restrictionism. After that, he tended to be pro-immigration because land was immensely available.

In American history, immigration and military conquest went together, immigration restriction and peace similarly were associated.

But if gratitude can be allowed to form an excuse for inconsistency in a public character, in The Man of the People; a strong plea of this sort may be urged in behalf of our President. It is certain that had the late election been decided entirely by native citizens, had foreign auxiliaries been rejected on both sides, the man who ostentatiously vaunts that the doors of public honor and confidence have been burst open to him, would not now have been at the head of the American nation. Such a proof then of virtuous discernment in the oppressed fugitives, had an imperious claim on him to a grateful return, and without supposing any very uncommon share of self-love; would naturally be a strong reason for a revolution in his opinions.

How could immigration depress the native birth rate in a vast and empty continent? Not to mention that the former didn't really get going, the latter didn't start at all for another generation, and the decline even then was only rapid in New England.

Tulsi Gabbard is the most popular politician in Hawaii.
I thought she only wanted to be Governor of Hawaii. Her sites have been set much higher.
Tulsi Gabbard is very smart.
She is also the disciple of Krishna guru Chris Butler.

Fascinating. Hamilton was woke to the "Rome declined and fell due to immigration" trope, now dominant on the Alt Right.

Fascinating. Hamilton was woke to the “Rome declined and fell due to immigration” trope, now dominant on the Alt Right.

Indeed. Enoch Powell once quoted Juvenal’s lines to good effect:

I cannot abide, Quirites, a Rome of Greeks; and yet what fraction of our dregs comes from Greece? The Syrian Orontes has long since poured into the Tiber, bringing with it its lingo and its manners, its flutes and its slanting harp-strings

But it seems to me that Juvenal’s lines are better suited to Anglo-America than Britain. Simply swap Hispanic for Greek, then note what a small fraction actually comes from Iberia, rivers of Amerind blood having long since overwhelmed the Spanish rivulet:

I cannot abide, Quirites, an America of Hispanics; and yet what fraction of our dregs comes from Iberia? Amerind rivers have long since overwhelmed the Spanish rivulet, bringing with it its lingo and its manners, its flutes and its slanting harp-strings

"I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?"

This is where I feel Steve's arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson's fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn't come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

Since I hate waiting

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants?

Let me count the ways:

Non-European immigration: Anglo-America has managed to absorb (oftentimes with great difficulty) European immigrants. So far, we’ve not had much success at absorbing large numbers of non-Europeans.

The Latin American Flood: Huge numbers of these non-Euro immigrants come from Mexico, a country which shares a border with the USA. And Mexico views large chunks of the USA (CA, Texas, etc) as Mexican territory. These conditions did not exist with immigrants from Europe.

The Multicultural incubus: Prior to 1965, our nation was ruled by a confident WASP elite. Immigrants were expected to absorb Anglo culture. Nowadays, our elites (cf JEB Bush) are craven and cringing traitors, eagerly telling immigrants that they should retain their native language and culture.

French people just rejected to live ever again under rule of capricious Sarco-trafficking globalist.

This failed manager of Uniparty’s French branch pampers his own children to dressage lessons , while demanding from Average Jacques to unconditionally prep the rest of pale younglings for 21. century future of mandatory métissage.

All Poor Nicolas wanted was to party with Gauls, like it’s still 2008.

Instead, now he has to explain to himself why he ended with only lousy bronze by winning less then 21% of votes in French Presidential primaries…

Maybe Sarco should go Full Barak, and simply blame it on les faux nouvelles:

1/ Since the Federalists didn't win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

2/ There's a practical contradiction between taking more western land (which most Americans approved of), and opposing immigration.

1/ Since the Federalists didn’t win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

Hamilton is talking about naturalization. And the Federal government can set all kinds of limits and restrictions on that process. Cf the naturalization law of 1790:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants?

Let me count the ways:

Non-European immigration: Anglo-America has managed to absorb (oftentimes with great difficulty) European immigrants. So far, we’ve not had much success at absorbing large numbers of non-Europeans.

The Latin American Flood: Huge numbers of these non-Euro immigrants come from Mexico, a country which shares a border with the USA. And Mexico views large chunks of the USA (CA, Texas, etc) as Mexican territory. These conditions did not exist with immigrants from Europe.

The Multicultural incubus: Prior to 1965, our nation was ruled by a confident WASP elite. Immigrants were expected to absorb Anglo culture. Nowadays, our elites (cf JEB Bush) are craven and cringing traitors, eagerly telling immigrants that they should retain their native language and culture.

Hamilton seems to be advocating a strict approach to naturalization, rather than imposing more restrictions on the entry or mere residence of foreigners. Is that how others are reading it? There is nothing intrinsically illiberal about that: freedom of movement, provided that private property rights are respected, is a right, but the vote is not a right.

Hamilton also seems to be saying that the US is being led by a foreigner. What is he referring to?

Hamilton also seems to be saying that the US is being led by a foreigner. What is he referring to?

Albert Gallatin:

Abraham Alfonse Albert Gallatin (January 29, 1761 – August 12, 1849) was a Swiss-American politician, diplomat, ethnologist and linguist. He served as a Representative, Senator, United States Ambassador and was the longest-serving United States Secretary of the Treasury. In 1831, he helped found the University of the City of New York, now New York University.
Born in Geneva in present-day Switzerland (which was unified in 1815), Gallatin immigrated to America in the 1780s and was naturalized in Morgantown, Virginia.

Frankly, bringing up Curtis Yarvin and Steve in the same sentence exhibits a want of judgement or decency.

Everything that Steve represents -- basic common sense, empirical and theoretical argument, careful assertion -- is lacking entirely in that blowhard and automatic contrarian Curtis Yarvin. Their occasional agreement on one point or another is almost accidental, given their differences in methodology.

Those of us who have developed a taste for the well argued truth, even in its more disagreeable manifestations, will never turn to a Curtis Yarvin.

Never heard of Curtis Yarvin, while I’ve probably been reading iSteve longer than Douthat has been at the NYT.

Hamilton seems to be advocating a strict approach to naturalization, rather than imposing more restrictions on the entry or mere residence of foreigners. Is that how others are reading it? There is nothing intrinsically illiberal about that: freedom of movement, provided that private property rights are respected, is a right, but the vote is not a right.

Hamilton also seems to be saying that the US is being led by a foreigner. What is he referring to?

Hamilton also seems to be saying that the US is being led by a foreigner. What is he referring to?

Albert Gallatin:

Abraham Alfonse Albert Gallatin (January 29, 1761 – August 12, 1849) was a Swiss-American politician, diplomat, ethnologist and linguist. He served as a Representative, Senator, United States Ambassador and was the longest-serving United States Secretary of the Treasury. In 1831, he helped found the University of the City of New York, now New York University.
Born in Geneva in present-day Switzerland (which was unified in 1815), Gallatin immigrated to America in the 1780s and was naturalized in Morgantown, Virginia.

"I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?"

This is where I feel Steve's arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson's fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn't come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

Who and whom applies to your conjecture.

If one cannot rely upon racialist arguments, it’s important and true to remember the economies of old probably necessitated vast amounts of low-skilled labor to expand. Low-skilled labor today is a net detractor economically, even more than it used to be because of our social welfare state.

As the IQ economy advances, increasing numbers of workers will be obsolete. Likewise, the IQ to master the skills necessary to succeed or even survive in the newer economies will push rightward along the IQ bell curve.

Five days ago, Trump scandalized the press by denying them access to his dinner with his family! Shocking! Today, Trump scandalized the press again by giving the press too much access to the appointment process! Unbelievable! Trump told the press he might make some appointments on Sunday ... after being asked if he might make appointments on Sunday! Outrageous! Trump said nice things about a potential nominee! I never! He shook the hands of nominees! It's a circus! There are chandeliers in one of his buildings! Pearls ... clutching!

President-elect Donald J. Trump has turned the vital, but normally inscrutable, process of forming a government into a Trump-branded, made-for-television spectacle, parading his finalists for top administration positions this weekend before reporters and the world.

The two days unfolded like a pageant, with the many would-be officials striding up the circular driveway at Trump National Golf Club here, meeting Mr. Trump below three glass chandeliers at the entrance and shaking hands while facing the cameras. To build suspense, Mr. Trump offered teasing hints about coming announcements.

“I think so,” he said about whether he would make any appointments on Sunday. “I think so. It could very well happen.”

...

Outside the club’s three-story farmhouse on Saturday, the president-elect poked a finger in General Mattis’s direction and called him “a great man.” The next morning, at 8:39, Mr. Trump gushed again, this time on Twitter, calling him “very impressive” and saying he was “a true general’s general!”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/trump-transition.html

” There are chandeliers in one of his buildings! Pearls … clutching!”

Your sarcasm is quite surprising, since you claim that factsareimportant .

There is a reason for NYT journalist alerting public about chandeliers in Donald’s Berghof compound.

Maybe that means nothing to you, but some of us that undeniably have very deep and complex sense of History – which wasn’t always gracious to our ancestors – that three chandeliers have much eerier meaning.

Do you have even slightest clue about who else was saluting his guests under chandeliers ?!:

In his closing remarks, Rabbi Hier shared the poignant and heartfelt story of Mr. Wiesenthal’s wish for his 90th Birthday.

“One day Simon called and said that he would like to celebrate his 90th birthday with a few friends in Vienna. It was at a time when he could no longer travel and his wife was bedridden.

I asked him where he would like to celebrate.

He said, ‘I have one unfulfilled wish, to have a party at the Imperial Hotel.’

Before I had a chance to ask why the Imperial, he told me that it was Hitler’s favorite hotel and that both he and Himmler had permanent suites there.

They built enormous bunkers beneath the hotel, which still exist today, because Hitler thought that this would serve as an ideal headquarters from where he could conduct the Second World War.

During the Third Reich, it would have been unthinkable, Simon said, for a Jew to be seen at the Imperial Hotel.

‘And I want to make sure,’ he said, ‘that all the taboos of the Third Reich are broken and that the record of this hotel would affirm that Simon Wiesenthal celebrated his 90th birthday here with a Kosher dinner.’

On the night of the dinner, when the band played a favorite Yiddish song, ‘Belz, Mein Shtele Belz’ (Belz, My Little Shtetl Belz), he looked up at the ceiling, turned to me, and said:

‘You see even the chandeliers are shaking because this is the first time they have ever heard such music here.

Let the record read,’ he said, ‘that Hitler is no longer here, but even in the Imperial Hotel, Jews are still alive and still singing.’”

A look at ideology is probably a better bet. By that standard, there are lots of people whose ancestors were all European and who came here centuries ago who aren’t ‘real’ Americans, and quite a few recent non-Euro immigrants who would qualify.

The American Hannibal, military genius and deserved hero of the early @Patriots”, Benedict Arnold, was true to the American revolution’s original principles when George Washington, deciding that Quebec as an ally was worth a mass, authorized his representatives to attend a Catholic memorial service.

Amusingly, the 13 colonies had actually revolted against a putative papist plot (the British extending tolerance to Catholics via the Quebec act), but when it became obvious that the British were too strong, Washington forced (he once had two solders who failed to salute him flogged and salt rubbed into their wounds) an end to open anti Catholicism in the Revolutionary army, such as the popular pastime of burning the Pope in effigy. Jefferson and Hamilton were no different. Whatever it took to win. Immigrant Irish and German Catholics made up a large part of the lower ranks of the Union Army in the Civil war.

"I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?"

This is where I feel Steve's arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson's fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn't come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

Because papist and fascist shared quite similar religion, culture, not to mention skin color with Americans? There was also lack of communications. If you decided to emigrate to United States you cut most ties with “Old Country”.

Now, thanks to the miracle of Internet you can share village gossip with people who stayed. And your cousin can ask you if you could marry your young daughter to him, so he also could move to United States.

There was also a large white, Anglo-Saxon majority that kept all this together. There was strong, confident culture that worked both as solvent of old and a glue. Now USA has global, modern values that above all cherish blessed diversity.

Better tell me the reason why you think present migration wave is going to be similar to old.

How could immigration depress the native birth rate in a vast and empty continent? Not to mention that the former didn’t really get going, the latter didn’t start at all for another generation, and the decline even then was only rapid in New England.

How could immigration depress the native birth rate in a vast and empty continent? Not to mention that the former didn’t really get going, the latter didn’t start at all for another generation, and the decline even then was only rapid in New England.

The precise mechanism is poorly understood, but the effect has been observed. Cf how later waves of German immigrants demographically swamped native settlers in the Old Northwest.

"I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?"

This is where I feel Steve's arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson's fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn't come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

“You got to enjoy eating lobster after being apprehensive about trying it, right? So why would you be adamantly set against eating shit?”

Hey guys, speaking of Hamilton, the dude you picked to lead us against Putin, Al Queda and the Chinese menace is in twitter wars against SNL and a Broadway musical cast!

Good, he's leading the fight for the right on all fronts. With the monolithic hold the left has across all media platforms, shoving their destructive ideology down our throats 24/7/365, this pushback from a major media personality is glorious to behold. Finally, a republican who doesn't turn the other cheek. Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, newspapers, et. al. are now actively and heavily censoring right viewpoints. They can't delete the President's Twitter account so easily. If you think Trump's supporters disapprove you are mistaken. Media being called on the carpet is long overdue.

A look at ideology is probably a better bet. By that standard, there are lots of people whose ancestors were all European and who came here centuries ago who aren't 'real' Americans, and quite a few recent non-Euro immigrants who would qualify.

A look at ideology is probably a better bet.

A bad bet. Ideologies change; nationalities endure.Cf the collapse of the animating ideology in the USSR. The Soviet Union died; Russia lives.

Fascinating. Hamilton was woke to the "Rome declined and fell due to immigration" trope, now dominant on the Alt Right.

Not really, he referred to the extension of citizenship to Rome’s Italic allies after the Social war which wasn’t really about immigration; alt-righters (like some early 20th century historians like Tenney Frank) claim Rome declined during the imperial era due to immigration from the Near East and alleged racial degeneration.
But very interesting piece, it’s surprising in a way how modern and readable it still is (had the same impression when reading Gibbon).

Didn't Hamilton once advocate monarchy within the US itself? I guess he wanted to offer the "throne" to Gen. Washington? And here he is denouncing Jefferson's open immigration policies on an anti-monarchy basis?

All public figures are hypocrites. All public figures flip-flop. What's the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone? Who will it convince other than those who are already very anti-immigration?

What’s the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone?

Fascinating. Hamilton was woke to the “Rome declined and fell due to immigration” trope, now dominant on the Alt Right.

Indeed. Enoch Powell once quoted Juvenal's lines to good effect:

I cannot abide, Quirites, a Rome of Greeks; and yet what fraction of our dregs comes from Greece? The Syrian Orontes has long since poured into the Tiber, bringing with it its lingo and its manners, its flutes and its slanting harp-strings

But it seems to me that Juvenal's lines are better suited to Anglo-America than Britain. Simply swap Hispanic for Greek, then note what a small fraction actually comes from Iberia, rivers of Amerind blood having long since overwhelmed the Spanish rivulet:

I cannot abide, Quirites, an America of Hispanics; and yet what fraction of our dregs comes from Iberia? Amerind rivers have long since overwhelmed the Spanish rivulet, bringing with it its lingo and its manners, its flutes and its slanting harp-strings

It’s easy to pick on the underdog, in this case the Hispanics.

The people running this country are overwhelmingly white, Obama himself is half white, and yet the bigots here place the blame at the feet of those who pick the crops.

What Mexican is picking is a fight with Russia in Ukraine? What Latino repealed the Glass Steagall Act. What Hispanic shipped the jobs to china, let alone Mexico?

The people running this country are overwhelmingly white, Obama himself is half white, and yet the bigots here place the blame at the feet of those who pick the crops.

Oh, I blame both the invaders and those who sell our birthright for a mess of pottage:

We are told by them, and we know who they are, they’re English too. They are the class that has always set themselves apart, they are the class that has always taken what they wanted for themselves, and now they are the class that is giving England away.

Five days ago, Trump scandalized the press by denying them access to his dinner with his family! Shocking! Today, Trump scandalized the press again by giving the press too much access to the appointment process! Unbelievable! Trump told the press he might make some appointments on Sunday ... after being asked if he might make appointments on Sunday! Outrageous! Trump said nice things about a potential nominee! I never! He shook the hands of nominees! It's a circus! There are chandeliers in one of his buildings! Pearls ... clutching!

President-elect Donald J. Trump has turned the vital, but normally inscrutable, process of forming a government into a Trump-branded, made-for-television spectacle, parading his finalists for top administration positions this weekend before reporters and the world.

The two days unfolded like a pageant, with the many would-be officials striding up the circular driveway at Trump National Golf Club here, meeting Mr. Trump below three glass chandeliers at the entrance and shaking hands while facing the cameras. To build suspense, Mr. Trump offered teasing hints about coming announcements.

“I think so,” he said about whether he would make any appointments on Sunday. “I think so. It could very well happen.”

...

Outside the club’s three-story farmhouse on Saturday, the president-elect poked a finger in General Mattis’s direction and called him “a great man.” The next morning, at 8:39, Mr. Trump gushed again, this time on Twitter, calling him “very impressive” and saying he was “a true general’s general!”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/trump-transition.html

President-elect Donald J. Trump has turned the vital, but normally inscrutable, process of forming a government into a Trump-branded, made-for-television spectacle, parading his finalists for top administration positions this weekend before reporters and the world.

Love him or hate him, they come from far and wide to kiss the ring.
1) Everybody loves a winner.
2) “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse” -Osama Bin Ladin

I’m an Englishman. I’m from Bermondsey, South-East London. My father was called George. He was also from Bermondsey. His father, another Bermondsey man, was called George too. And his father, my great-grandfather, is from the same place. He was called Edward.

These three generations of my family, were in the fish trade. I’m the first member of my family not to work at the market in Billingsgate. My great-grandfather had eleven brothers and sisters. They all married except one. They had 43 children. Of these 37 married and between them they had further 159 children. One of those was my father. I don’t know exactly how many of his generation married or exactly how many children they produced. I’ve so far tracked over two-hundred of them.

Many still live in Bermondsey. Some are still in the fish trade.

There are seven called George, and five called Victoria. I stand here, in front of you, as a representative of all of them. And I ask in their name the great question put by our patron, Mr Powell. What do they know of England, who only England know? Or, what can my family, who come from England, who lived in England, who know only England, say of this, our country?

Mr Powell once spoke of the destruction of ancient Athens and the miraculous survival in the blackened ruins of that city of the sacred olive tree; the symbol of Greece, their country. And he also spoke of us, the English, at the heart of a vanished empire, seeming to find within ourselves that one of our own oak trees, the sap rising from our ancient roots, and he said perhaps, after all, we who have inhabited this island fortress for an unbroken thousand years, brought up, as he said, within the sound of English bird song under the English oak, in the English meadow, beneath the red cross of St. George, it is us who know most of England.

And I appreciated him for saying that, because it was as if he spoke for my family, who understand well their own country. Who understand even better their own capital, London town, as we used to call her. As we strolled in her parks, as we marveled at her palaces, as we did buisness in the city, went west for a dance, took a boat on the river. The pale ale and eel pie of old London. The London of my family for as many generations as I know. The London that will in less than fifteen years will be less than fifty percent white. London, where in fifteen years a white person will be in the minority.

Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe?

My gripe, and I speak on behalf of seven men called George and five women called Victoria, my gripe is quite simple.

My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is that we were told, not asked, and everyday we are told again and again how we are to be and how our country is to be. We are told by them, and we know who they are, they’re English too. They are the class that has always set themselves apart, they are the class that has always taken what they wanted for themselves, and now they are the class that is giving England away.

They have never asked us, and they never will.

Do we allow them to sell our heritage? Or is it time for us to speak?

To speak, to refuse them the right to give away our holy, or bountiful, our only England that has, that has nurtured us, naked, grown us as the oak. Is it time for us that England know to come yet again and defend our country? With our fire, our fists?

The problem was that there wasn't enough English people to populate the whole North American continent. So eventually they let Germans, Irish and so forth come in.

The French and Indian War opened up the vast Ohio River Valley. Before that, Franklin laid out the intellectual case for immigration restrictionism. After that, he tended to be pro-immigration because land was immensely available.

In American history, immigration and military conquest went together, immigration restriction and peace similarly were associated.

The people running this country are overwhelmingly white, Obama himself is half white, and yet the bigots here place the blame at the feet of those who pick the crops.

What Mexican is picking is a fight with Russia in Ukraine? What Latino repealed the Glass Steagall Act. What Hispanic shipped the jobs to china, let alone Mexico?

It’s easy to pick on the underdog, in this case the Hispanics.

The people running this country are overwhelmingly white, Obama himself is half white, and yet the bigots here place the blame at the feet of those who pick the crops.

Oh, I blame both the invaders and those who sell our birthright for a mess of pottage:

We are told by them, and we know who they are, they’re English too. They are the class that has always set themselves apart, they are the class that has always taken what they wanted for themselves, and now they are the class that is giving England away.

The problem of course is that the open borders fanatics don’t care about history or facts. Just like they have appropriated the Statue Of Liberty into the Statue of Unlimited Immigration, the real history means nothing to them. Tell them that the Statue was built in honor of US independence and the rights of Americans to run their own government which includes immigration and they will simply ignore you and quote instead that rather bad poem which was not even attached to the outside of the Statue until a decade later

Most Americans now firmly believe that the Emma Lazarus doggerel is an excerpt from the US Constitution. Or, if it’s not, it surely should be. Another ‘accomplishment’ of decades of MSM propaganda.

Born on July 22, 1849 in New York City to a wealthy sugar refining family of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish descent, Emma Lazarus was the poet who wrote “The New Colossus.” Aside from writing, Lazarus was also involved in charitable work for refugees. At Ward’s Island, she worked as an aide for Jewish immigrants who had been detained by immigration officials.

After its initial popularity however, the sonnet slowly faded from public memory. It was not until 1901, 17 years after Lazarus’s death, that Georgina Schuyler, a friend of hers, found a book containing the sonnet in a bookshop and organized a civic effort to resurrect the lost work. Her efforts paid off and in 1903, words from the sonnet were inscribed on a plaque and placed on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

From Mizpeh's mountain-ridge they saw
Jerusalem's empty streets, her shrine
Laid waste where Greeks profaned the Law,
With idol and with pagan sign.
Mourners in tattered black were there,
With ashes sprinkled on their hair.

Then from the stony peak there rang
A blast to ope the graves: down poured
The Maccabean clan, who sang
Their battle-anthem to the Lord.
Five heroes lead, and following, see,
Ten thousand rush to victory!

Oh for Jerusalem's trumpet now,
To blow a blast of shattering power,
To wake the sleepers high and low,
And rouse them to the urgent hour!
No hand for vengeance-but to save,
A million naked swords should wave.

Oh deem not dead that martial fire,
Say not the mystic flame is spent!
With Moses' law and David's lyre,
Your ancient strength remains unbent.
Let but an Ezra rise anew,
To lift the BANNER OF THE JEW!

A rag, a mock at first-erelong,
When men have bled and women wept,
To guard its precious folds from wrong,
Even they who shrunk, even they who slept,
Shall leap to bless it, and to save.
Strike! for the brave revere the brave!

http://www.bartleby.com/98/289.html

Usually they're smart enough to not have the very same person say both "Nationalism for me" and "Not for thee!" It helps to hide the hypocrisy a little bit.

This info pretty much kills my cherished hypothesis that EL was secretly an immigration restrictionist. The poem to me reads like a bitter satire on the open-door (to Europeans) policy. "The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" - yeah, who wouldn't want some wretched refuse added to the population?

How could immigration depress the native birth rate in a vast and empty continent? Not to mention that the former didn't really get going, the latter didn't start at all for another generation, and the decline even then was only rapid in New England.

How could immigration depress the native birth rate in a vast and empty continent? Not to mention that the former didn’t really get going, the latter didn’t start at all for another generation, and the decline even then was only rapid in New England.

The precise mechanism is poorly understood, but the effect has been observed. Cf how later waves of German immigrants demographically swamped native settlers in the Old Northwest.

Why was Pence spending 850/head to see some cheeseball play? I won't even spend 8 dollars to see the junk out of Hollywood.

His mistake was acting like one of those things that Trump bragged about grabbing, in response the Hamilton's cast rant. He should have said that they have the right to speak their minds but that doesn't mean that they are rational or intelligent human beings. Trump would have not been so gracious (he wasnt on Twitter) and that is why middle America elected him. Pence, with his good guy cucky ways repulsed me in his response.

Which is why patriots worthy of the name will pray for our new president’s continued health and safety. Because, thanks to his pick for veep, should anything happen to the president we’ll be right back where we started. Ann Coulter was right about the choice of Pence being a grievous error.

She [ Frauke Petry] thought that German politics was more weighed down by liberal pieties. “It’s so moral to allow these attacks to happen,” she said sarcastically. “It’s so moral to promise to people around the world that they can come to Germany and find paradise.” She found this outlook anti-democratic, disdainful of the views of ordinary Germans. “I myself am not morally good,” she said. “I’m just a human being. I try to stick to the rules. And I think there is a majority of Germans who agree with me. So, reducing the entire Enlightenment and all of the successes of European history down to this need to be morally good: I find that extremely dangerous. There’s this saying of Nietzsche”—she took out her phone and pulled up the quote almost instantly. “Here it is, in ‘Zarathustra’: ‘The good have always been the beginning of the end

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. The gist seems to be that, sure, immigration eventually worked out but not without a lot of pain. And the gains may no longer justify it.

And, as I pointed out, it might not work out this time. The track record with non-European immigrants is poor.

And, of course, Hispanic Mestizos and Amerinds are not exactly first class human material:

“Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

Immigration has had only a modest impact on the nation’s age structure, but a striking one on its racial and ethnic makeup.8 Without immigration since 1965, the U.S. today would have a median age of 41, not 38. The nation would be 75% white instead of 62%. Hispanics would be 8% of the population, not 18%. And Asians would be less than 1% of Americans, instead of 6%.

Are people picking on Hispanics? One may well empathize with their desire for a better life but can the Western countries import the whole population of the badly run nations of the world?

It sounds heartless, but line must be drawn somewhere. There is no win-win solution.

She [ Frauke Petry] thought that German politics was more weighed down by liberal pieties. “It’s so moral to allow these attacks to happen,” she said sarcastically. “It’s so moral to promise to people around the world that they can come to Germany and find paradise.” She found this outlook anti-democratic, disdainful of the views of ordinary Germans. “I myself am not morally good,” she said. “I’m just a human being. I try to stick to the rules. And I think there is a majority of Germans who agree with me. So, reducing the entire Enlightenment and all of the successes of European history down to this need to be morally good: I find that extremely dangerous. There’s this saying of Nietzsche”—she took out her phone and pulled up the quote almost instantly. “Here it is, in ‘Zarathustra’: ‘The good have always been the beginning of the end

She [ Frauke Petry] thought that German politics was more weighed down by liberal pieties. “It’s so moral to allow these attacks to happen,” she said sarcastically. “It’s so moral to promise to people around the world that they can come to Germany and find paradise.” She found this outlook anti-democratic, disdainful of the views of ordinary Germans. “I myself am not morally good,” she said. “I’m just a human being. I try to stick to the rules. And I think there is a majority of Germans who agree with me. So, reducing the entire Enlightenment and all of the successes of European history down to this need to be morally good: I find that extremely dangerous. There’s this saying of Nietzsche”—she took out her phone and pulled up the quote almost instantly. “Here it is, in ‘Zarathustra’: ‘The good have always been the beginning of the end

Most Americans now firmly believe that the Emma Lazarus doggerel is an excerpt from the US Constitution. Or, if it's not, it surely should be. Another 'accomplishment' of decades of MSM propaganda.

Born on July 22, 1849 in New York City to a wealthy sugar refining family of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish descent, Emma Lazarus was the poet who wrote "The New Colossus." Aside from writing, Lazarus was also involved in charitable work for refugees. At Ward's Island, she worked as an aide for Jewish immigrants who had been detained by immigration officials.

After its initial popularity however, the sonnet slowly faded from public memory. It was not until 1901, 17 years after Lazarus's death, that Georgina Schuyler, a friend of hers, found a book containing the sonnet in a bookshop and organized a civic effort to resurrect the lost work. Her efforts paid off and in 1903, words from the sonnet were inscribed on a plaque and placed on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

From Mizpeh’s mountain-ridge they saw
Jerusalem’s empty streets, her shrine
Laid waste where Greeks profaned the Law,
With idol and with pagan sign.
Mourners in tattered black were there,
With ashes sprinkled on their hair.

Then from the stony peak there rang
A blast to ope the graves: down poured
The Maccabean clan, who sang
Their battle-anthem to the Lord.
Five heroes lead, and following, see,
Ten thousand rush to victory!

Oh for Jerusalem’s trumpet now,
To blow a blast of shattering power,
To wake the sleepers high and low,
And rouse them to the urgent hour!
No hand for vengeance-but to save,
A million naked swords should wave.

Oh deem not dead that martial fire,
Say not the mystic flame is spent!
With Moses’ law and David’s lyre,
Your ancient strength remains unbent.
Let but an Ezra rise anew,
To lift the BANNER OF THE JEW!

A rag, a mock at first-erelong,
When men have bled and women wept,
To guard its precious folds from wrong,
Even they who shrunk, even they who slept,
Shall leap to bless it, and to save.
Strike! for the brave revere the brave!

Most Americans now firmly believe that the Emma Lazarus doggerel is an excerpt from the US Constitution. Or, if it's not, it surely should be. Another 'accomplishment' of decades of MSM propaganda.

Born on July 22, 1849 in New York City to a wealthy sugar refining family of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish descent, Emma Lazarus was the poet who wrote "The New Colossus." Aside from writing, Lazarus was also involved in charitable work for refugees. At Ward's Island, she worked as an aide for Jewish immigrants who had been detained by immigration officials.

After its initial popularity however, the sonnet slowly faded from public memory. It was not until 1901, 17 years after Lazarus's death, that Georgina Schuyler, a friend of hers, found a book containing the sonnet in a bookshop and organized a civic effort to resurrect the lost work. Her efforts paid off and in 1903, words from the sonnet were inscribed on a plaque and placed on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

(NPS)

Born on July 22, 1849 in New York City to a wealthy sugar refining family of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish descent, Emma Lazarus…. Georgina Schuyler, a friend of hers

Tulsi Gabbard is the most popular politician in Hawaii.
I thought she only wanted to be Governor of Hawaii. Her sites have been set much higher.
Tulsi Gabbard is very smart.
She is also the disciple of Krishna guru Chris Butler.

Most Americans now firmly believe that the Emma Lazarus doggerel is an excerpt from the US Constitution.

Lazarus wrote in 1883 and was obviously referring to white immigrants only. Of course these same ignoramuses who condemn Lazarus for an immigration policy no one in her time, including Lazarus, could have imagined also have a low opinion of Moldbug.

@Sailer

In American history, immigration and military conquest went together, immigration restriction and peace similarly were associated.

Economics has been more important than diplomacy.

The Great Wave immigration was a side effect of Hamilton’s Federalist program of industrialization and state supported capitalism being fully unleashed after the Civil War ended the hindrance of the South’s backwards agrarian economics. It was Northern Industrial might which created demand for strong backs from the Old World to staff our factories in the wrongly named Gilded Age (which was actually America’s Golden Age).

The precise mechanism is poorly understood, but the effect has been observed. Cf how later waves of German immigrants demographically swamped native settlers in the Old Northwest.

I don’t find it arguments that white immigration depressed white American birth rates during the early 20th century “Birth Dirth”. There was a trend of declining fertility across the West in the late 19th century. France’s birth rate was particularly low for the entire century after Waterloo, although they also opened themselves to a Great Wave immigration from Southern Europe later that century. But Southern European immigration shouldn’t have depressed French Birth rates any more than Scandinavian immigration should depress native Anglo-American birth rates in the 19th century.

I don’t find it arguments that white immigration depressed white American birth rates during the early 20th century “Birth Dirth”. There was a trend of declining fertility across the West in the late 19th century. France’s birth rate was particularly low for the entire century after Waterloo, although they also opened themselves to a Great Wave immigration from Southern Europe later that century. But Southern European immigration shouldn’t have depressed French Birth rates any more than Scandinavian immigration should depress native Anglo-American birth rates in the 19th century.

The problem, of course, is that we would need another America (one with limited post 1790 immigration) to use as a control to really test the hypothesis.

And I recall reading somewhere a demographic study that argued that, minus post-1790 immigration, the population of the USA in 1976 would have been around 150 million ( in our timeline, it was 218 million).

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. The gist seems to be that, sure, immigration eventually worked out but not without a lot of pain. And the gains may no longer justify it.

Maybe you're right and immigration will go the way of trade deals i.e. Americans acknowledge the historical benefits but feel the gains no longer outweigh the pain.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. The gist seems to be that, sure, immigration eventually worked out but not without a lot of pain. And the gains may no longer justify it.

And, as I pointed out, it might not work out this time. The track record with non-European immigrants is poor.

And, of course, Hispanic Mestizos and Amerinds are not exactly first class human material:

“Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

The precise mechanism is poorly understood, but the effect has been observed. Cf how later waves of German immigrants demographically swamped native settlers in the Old Northwest.

I don't find it arguments that white immigration depressed white American birth rates during the early 20th century "Birth Dirth". There was a trend of declining fertility across the West in the late 19th century. France's birth rate was particularly low for the entire century after Waterloo, although they also opened themselves to a Great Wave immigration from Southern Europe later that century. But Southern European immigration shouldn't have depressed French Birth rates any more than Scandinavian immigration should depress native Anglo-American birth rates in the 19th century.

Knowledge of various contraceptive techniques was filtering out from 19th Century France to the upper reaches of the English speaking world.

Darwin had ten kids but only nine grandkids. Galton noticed this trend early.

The people running this country are overwhelmingly white, Obama himself is half white, and yet the bigots here place the blame at the feet of those who pick the crops.

What Mexican is picking is a fight with Russia in Ukraine? What Latino repealed the Glass Steagall Act. What Hispanic shipped the jobs to china, let alone Mexico?

I feel you. No Palestinian ever called me “goy.”

It’s not like there are White ethnopatriots or WNs picking a fight with Russia in Ukraine, repealing the Glass Steagall Act (a mistake, I agree), shipping jobs to China and Mexico, etc. So I feel you there, too.

If Mexicans don’t like being criticized, they should talk to the white liberals you mention. It’s the white liberals who told a bunch of lies in defense of mass immigration and the delusion of equality. It’s the white liberals who accuse Whites of oppressing Mexicans, causing their problems, etc. The time for White people to be polite and sensitive toward Mexicans ended the day white liberals accused Whites of doing all sorts of bad things to Mexicans. It’s like a trial or a civil action; you can’t sue a guy or accuse him of a crime, then complain when he says impolite things while defending himself from the charge. That would be unjust, like railroading someone in a court of law.

Hey guys, speaking of Hamilton, the dude you picked to lead us against Putin, Al Queda and the Chinese menace is in twitter wars against SNL and a Broadway musical cast!

Hey guys, speaking of Hamilton, the dude you picked to lead us against Putin, Al Queda and the Chinese menace is in twitter wars against SNL and a Broadway musical cast!

Good, he’s leading the fight for the right on all fronts. With the monolithic hold the left has across all media platforms, shoving their destructive ideology down our throats 24/7/365, this pushback from a major media personality is glorious to behold. Finally, a republican who doesn’t turn the other cheek. Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, newspapers, et. al. are now actively and heavily censoring right viewpoints. They can’t delete the President’s Twitter account so easily. If you think Trump’s supporters disapprove you are mistaken. Media being called on the carpet is long overdue.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. The gist seems to be that, sure, immigration eventually worked out but not without a lot of pain. And the gains may no longer justify it.

And, as I pointed out, it might not work out this time. The track record with non-European immigrants is poor.

And, of course, Hispanic Mestizos and Amerinds are not exactly first class human material:

“Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

Not just on the Alt Right, there some sensible thinkers on the 'Dissident Left,' who use the comparison:

On the other hand, the out of control issue of immigration which Trump raised at the outset of his campaign remains a burning spear flung through the heart of all we stand for in America. If we fail to gain an equitable solution to this abrogation of our precious rule of law we are destined, as happened long ago with the Roman Empire, to a catabolic decline in power and prosperity. [...]
These constituencies include businesses that want more cheap labor and the ethnic and religious institutions that look to increase their numbers and power. For instance, Pope Francis just implied that anything short of keeping our borders wide open is immoral! His and other wanton self-interested hypocritical plays for power have long been grinding at the hearts of those who voted Mr. Trump into office.
[...]
Former US Navy officer, banker and venture capitalist, Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC., has spent over 40 years working for women’s reproductive health as a board member and/or officer of numerous family planning organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International and Ipas. Yale under graduate, NYU MBA. He is the author of From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013.

He said that “in God’s heart there are no enemies,” and chided those who “raise walls, build barriers and label people.” The comments were seen by some Vatican observers as a rebuke to calls by President-elect Donald J. Trump to build a border wall and to restrict Muslims from entering the United States.

Pope Francis did not single out any country, but he has expressed dismay over the harsh tone on immigration that Mr. Trump has taken.

Another threat to the Church is the illegal immigration control movement. If this movement succeeds, and what is perceived by Latin Americans and other governments as an escape valve is shut off, these governments would logically say, “Our demographic course cannot continue.” These governments would have little choice but to confront the Church and say, “If we are to survive as governments, then we must get serious about population growth control. Otherwise, we in Latin America are destined to become a sea of chaos. We, as Latin Americans, must make family planning and abortion services fully available and encourage their use.” Turning off the valve to illegal immigration is therefore a serious threat to the power of the Church.

The precise mechanism is poorly understood, but the effect has been observed. Cf how later waves of German immigrants demographically swamped native settlers in the Old Northwest.

I don't find it arguments that white immigration depressed white American birth rates during the early 20th century "Birth Dirth". There was a trend of declining fertility across the West in the late 19th century. France's birth rate was particularly low for the entire century after Waterloo, although they also opened themselves to a Great Wave immigration from Southern Europe later that century. But Southern European immigration shouldn't have depressed French Birth rates any more than Scandinavian immigration should depress native Anglo-American birth rates in the 19th century.

I don’t find it arguments that white immigration depressed white American birth rates during the early 20th century “Birth Dirth”. There was a trend of declining fertility across the West in the late 19th century. France’s birth rate was particularly low for the entire century after Waterloo, although they also opened themselves to a Great Wave immigration from Southern Europe later that century. But Southern European immigration shouldn’t have depressed French Birth rates any more than Scandinavian immigration should depress native Anglo-American birth rates in the 19th century.

The problem, of course, is that we would need another America (one with limited post 1790 immigration) to use as a control to really test the hypothesis.

And I recall reading somewhere a demographic study that argued that, minus post-1790 immigration, the population of the USA in 1976 would have been around 150 million ( in our timeline, it was 218 million).

Hey guys, speaking of Hamilton, the dude you picked to lead us against Putin, Al Queda and the Chinese menace is in twitter wars against SNL and a Broadway musical cast!

He’s still got 60 days to go. Putin just put missiles in “Kaliningrad,” let’s see if Hussein folds to the left, or to the right.

OT:

Democrats are already signaling a bruising confirmation fight, saying that even though he’s a senator — a position that usually secures speedy approval — they’ll put him through the wringer because of his staunch conservative positions.

Sessions should ask these Democrats why they put up with such a horrible guy for the 20 years he’s been in the Senate.

The people running this country are overwhelmingly white, Obama himself is half white, and yet the bigots here place the blame at the feet of those who pick the crops.

What Mexican is picking is a fight with Russia in Ukraine? What Latino repealed the Glass Steagall Act. What Hispanic shipped the jobs to china, let alone Mexico?

I feel you. No Palestinian ever called me "goy."

It's not like there are White ethnopatriots or WNs picking a fight with Russia in Ukraine, repealing the Glass Steagall Act (a mistake, I agree), shipping jobs to China and Mexico, etc. So I feel you there, too.

If Mexicans don't like being criticized, they should talk to the white liberals you mention. It's the white liberals who told a bunch of lies in defense of mass immigration and the delusion of equality. It's the white liberals who accuse Whites of oppressing Mexicans, causing their problems, etc. The time for White people to be polite and sensitive toward Mexicans ended the day white liberals accused Whites of doing all sorts of bad things to Mexicans. It's like a trial or a civil action; you can't sue a guy or accuse him of a crime, then complain when he says impolite things while defending himself from the charge. That would be unjust, like railroading someone in a court of law.

P.S., do we seem soft on white liberals to you?

“I feel you. No Palestinian ever called me “goy.”

Those Palestinians will just call you an infidel, which is not any more flattering.

Frankly, bringing up Curtis Yarvin and Steve in the same sentence exhibits a want of judgement or decency.

Everything that Steve represents -- basic common sense, empirical and theoretical argument, careful assertion -- is lacking entirely in that blowhard and automatic contrarian Curtis Yarvin. Their occasional agreement on one point or another is almost accidental, given their differences in methodology.

Those of us who have developed a taste for the well argued truth, even in its more disagreeable manifestations, will never turn to a Curtis Yarvin.

Those of us who have developed a taste for the well argued truth, even in its more disagreeable manifestations, will never turn to a Curtis Yarvin.

Sounds like the voice of first-hand experience when it comes to blowhards.

You’re not Yarvin’s target audience. They like obscure allusions and roundabout arguments – let’s them keep feeling smart while he talks them out of the obsolete opinions they were formerly employing to achieve that effect.

Some TMZ reporter should ask the Kardashian sisters if they think Alexander Hamilton was a handsome man, if they say no than that’s evidence that he was not a Black Caribbean man like the mainstream media tries to paint him. After all the Kardashian sisters have never met a Black man who they didn’t think was hot. Alexander Hamilton was way too pale for Khloe and Kim.

Mexican fans of the Oakland Raiders are chanting the gay slur ¡Puto! during the game between the Raiders and Houston Texans in Mexico City. The slur can be heard on the ESPN broadcast.

The game is technically a Raiders home game and the crowd is heavily supporting Oakland. The chant has been heard six times so far in the first half on kicks: When the Texans tried a field goal; kicked off following a field goal and touchdown; attempted an extra point and on two punts. In addition to what’s being heard on ESPN, fans at the game are reporting hearing the slur.

Which is why patriots worthy of the name will pray for our new president's continued health and safety. Because, thanks to his pick for veep, should anything happen to the president we'll be right back where we started. Ann Coulter was right about the choice of Pence being a grievous error.

How could immigration depress the native birth rate in a vast and empty continent? Not to mention that the former didn’t really get going, the latter didn’t start at all for another generation, and the decline even then was only rapid in New England.

The precise mechanism is poorly understood, but the effect has been observed. Cf how later waves of German immigrants demographically swamped native settlers in the Old Northwest.

French people just rejected to live ever again under rule of capricious Sarco-trafficking globalist.

This failed manager of Uniparty's French branch pampers his own children to dressage lessons , while demanding from Average Jacques to unconditionally prep the rest of pale younglings for 21. century future of mandatory métissage.

All Poor Nicolas wanted was to party with Gauls, like it's still 2008.

Instead, now he has to explain to himself why he ended with only lousy bronze by winning less then 21% of votes in French Presidential primaries...

Maybe Sarco should go Full Barak, and simply blame it on les faux nouvelles:

Steve, don't you know schoolkids could g**gle "Hamilton" and stumble upon this stuff? Shame on you.

Didn’t Hamilton once advocate monarchy within the US itself? I guess he wanted to offer the “throne” to Gen. Washington? And here he is denouncing Jefferson’s open immigration policies on an anti-monarchy basis?

All public figures are hypocrites. All public figures flip-flop. What’s the point in dredging up one speech made at one point in time by someone? Who will it convince other than those who are already very anti-immigration?

Eppur si muove (And yet, you complain)...

1/ Since the Federalists didn’t win any national elections after 1796 (and unlike Jefferson, Hamilton himself won zero national elections) can we assume that anti-immigration sentiment in the US was often small a bit before 1965?

Why not? We can assume the Moon is made of green cheese, if we like.

1790:

Naturalization Act of 1790. The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character.

1802:

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802

Since Hamilton was parroting popular sentiment in 1802, and still didn't win any national elections, can we assume that his love of Big Banks and Oligarchs torpedoed his career?

This is where I feel Steve’s arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

Hamilton was right. European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti. And global multiculti is now destroying the Republic.

And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition. The vast majority of European immigration was from countries that are doing very well for themselves today. The same is not true of global immigration.

And the European immigration was of a sort that would not radically alter the genetic composition of the population. I.e., it did not herald race-replacement, or bio-suicide. The opposite is true of global immigration.

“Since Hamilton was parroting popular sentiment in 1802, and still didn’t win any national elections, can we assume that his love of Big Banks and Oligarchs torpedoed his career?”

No, Hamilton was pandering ideology to his base. Remember, only those who were of direct British descendants were deemed “true” Americans. Do you have the golden pass? If not, feel free to deport yourself.

“Hamilton was right. European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti. And global multiculti is now destroying the Republic.”

You are being your normal ignorant self. The United States in 1790 was already “European multicult”. Moreover, these “huddled masses” enabled the formation of our industrial juggernaut by the 1800′s. But, according to you, they didn’t build it.

“And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition.”

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“And the European immigration was of a sort that would not radically alter the genetic composition of the population. I.e., it did not herald race-replacement, or bio-suicide. The opposite is true of global immigration.”

Another melodramatic moment on your part. As soon as Europeans set foot on the Americas by displacing the indigenous population and bringing in Africans, the genetic composition was cast in stone.

“And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition.”

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those are two completely different things, you are stating that everyone desires to be rich/successful, which, to put it mildly, takes no great insight . That however does not imply that everyone can be rich simply because they want it. Did you know that Africa usually tops the world surveys asking about general optimism for the future, but always makes it to the bottom the list of poorest, least developed, corrupt, education achievement etc. Now why is this, surely these should be the richest people on the planet ?

And while you are here, can you please explain how nations like Mexico just cannot seem to get it right, if all one needs to affluence is concepts of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" one would think they would have done this by now ?

No, Hamilton was pandering ideology to his base. Remember, only those who were of direct British descendants were deemed “true” Americans. Do you have the golden pass? If not, feel free to deport yourself.

I do, actually. Not that has (*@!-all to do with anything I said, you plodding nitwit.

You are being your normal ignorant self. The United States in 1790 was already “European multicult”. Moreover, these “huddled masses” enabled the formation of our industrial juggernaut by the 1800′s. But, according to you, they didn’t build it.

Like most leftists, you can’t stay on-topic. I say European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti, which it manifestly did (it’s common sense, FFS), and you have to change the subject because you have nothing to say, but you have to say something.

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Understanding is influenced by intellect.

Another melodramatic moment on your part. As soon as Europeans set foot on the Americas by displacing the indigenous population and bringing in Africans, the genetic composition was cast in stone.

"I do, actually. Not that has (*@!-all to do with anything I said, you plodding nitwit."

You're going to have to prove that both of your ancestors who arrived to the United States as immigrants were English, Welsh, or Scottish, that they (and you) are "true Americans". How does it feel to be an elitist?

"Like most leftists, you can’t stay on-topic. I say European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti, which it manifestly did "

I'm not a leftist, I'm an American who can make up his own mind about politics and economics. Furthermore, it wasn't the "European multiculti" that paved the way for "global multi". That process has been ongoing since the first civilizations were created.

"Nope. Understanding is influenced by intellect."

Understanding the most elemental parts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is both intellectual and environmental. White, black, Asian, mixed, indigenous...each racial group is capable of putting into practice those concepts. Why you are unable to grasp this simple fact is beyond me.

No, Hamilton was pandering ideology to his base. Remember, only those who were of direct British descendants were deemed “true” Americans. Do you have the golden pass? If not, feel free to deport yourself.

I do, actually. Not that has (*@!-all to do with anything I said, you plodding nitwit.

You are being your normal ignorant self. The United States in 1790 was already “European multicult”. Moreover, these “huddled masses” enabled the formation of our industrial juggernaut by the 1800′s. But, according to you, they didn’t build it.

Like most leftists, you can't stay on-topic. I say European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti, which it manifestly did (it's common sense, FFS), and you have to change the subject because you have nothing to say, but you have to say something.

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Understanding is influenced by intellect.

Another melodramatic moment on your part. As soon as Europeans set foot on the Americas by displacing the indigenous population and bringing in Africans, the genetic composition was cast in stone.

Another plodding non-statement.

“I do, actually. Not that has (*@!-all to do with anything I said, you plodding nitwit.”

You’re going to have to prove that both of your ancestors who arrived to the United States as immigrants were English, Welsh, or Scottish, that they (and you) are “true Americans”. How does it feel to be an elitist?

“Like most leftists, you can’t stay on-topic. I say European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti, which it manifestly did ”

I’m not a leftist, I’m an American who can make up his own mind about politics and economics. Furthermore, it wasn’t the “European multiculti” that paved the way for “global multi”. That process has been ongoing since the first civilizations were created.

“Nope. Understanding is influenced by intellect.”

Understanding the most elemental parts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is both intellectual and environmental. White, black, Asian, mixed, indigenous…each racial group is capable of putting into practice those concepts. Why you are unable to grasp this simple fact is beyond me.

Understanding the most elemental parts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is both intellectual and environmental. White, black, Asian, mixed, indigenous…each racial group is capable of putting into practice those concepts. Why you are unable to grasp this simple fact is beyond me.

“understanding” … “capable of” … “simple fact”

There’s a lot of room between theoretically being capable of understanding something and having been observed to have a propensity for actually pursuing it.

According to Wikipedia “[St Paddy's Day] has been celebrated in North America since the late 18th century.” So, with no fear of being anachronistic, let the Hamilton-said-something-similar jokes begin…

Some TMZ reporter should ask the Kardashian sisters if they think Alexander Hamilton was a handsome man, if they say no than that's evidence that he was not a Black Caribbean man like the mainstream media tries to paint him. After all the Kardashian sisters have never met a Black man who they didn't think was hot. Alexander Hamilton was way too pale for Khloe and Kim.

Jeff; you really should have listened to more of your Dad’s advice on getting pussy.

"Since Hamilton was parroting popular sentiment in 1802, and still didn’t win any national elections, can we assume that his love of Big Banks and Oligarchs torpedoed his career?"

No, Hamilton was pandering ideology to his base. Remember, only those who were of direct British descendants were deemed "true" Americans. Do you have the golden pass? If not, feel free to deport yourself.

"Hamilton was right. European multiculti paved the way for global multiculti. And global multiculti is now destroying the Republic."

You are being your normal ignorant self. The United States in 1790 was already "European multicult". Moreover, these "huddled masses" enabled the formation of our industrial juggernaut by the 1800's. But, according to you, they didn't build it.

"And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition."

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"And the European immigration was of a sort that would not radically alter the genetic composition of the population. I.e., it did not herald race-replacement, or bio-suicide. The opposite is true of global immigration."

Another melodramatic moment on your part. As soon as Europeans set foot on the Americas by displacing the indigenous population and bringing in Africans, the genetic composition was cast in stone.

“And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition.”

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those are two completely different things, you are stating that everyone desires to be rich/successful, which, to put it mildly, takes no great insight . That however does not imply that everyone can be rich simply because they want it. Did you know that Africa usually tops the world surveys asking about general optimism for the future, but always makes it to the bottom the list of poorest, least developed, corrupt, education achievement etc. Now why is this, surely these should be the richest people on the planet ?

And while you are here, can you please explain how nations like Mexico just cannot seem to get it right, if all one needs to affluence is concepts of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” one would think they would have done this by now ?

"Those are two completely different things, you are stating that everyone desires to be rich/successful, which, to put it mildly, takes no great insight."

Actually, YOU are making this statement, not I.

"Did you know that Africa usually tops the world surveys asking about general optimism for the future, but always makes it to the bottom the list of poorest, least developed, corrupt, education achievement etc. Now why is this, surely these should be the richest people on the planet?"

You are going off the reservation here. I'm not talking about Africa, the continent, and its myriad of issues. I am talking about an immigrant's mindset when they arrive to America. Generally speaking, they come here knowing about how they want to live their life, how they want to exercise their freedoms, and how they want to become happy in their new country. Those are universal human traits.

"And while you are here, can you please explain how nations like Mexico just cannot seem to get it right"

The problem, of course, is that we would need another America (one with limited post 1790 immigration) to use as a control to really test the hypothesis.

Short of that we have other 19th & early 20th century European nations to compare our fertility with. Since France had their Great Wave immigration at about the same time we did perhaps we can compare Imperial Germany which did not have immigration rates comparable to America or France.

Germany’s birth rate moderated from the high level it was in the mid-19th century and fell to, If I recall correctly, 3 before WWI. Imperial Russia just before the war had a birth rate in excess of 5; this coupled with Russia’s industrialization was a motivation for Wilhelmine Germany to fight a war to dominate the continent before Russia could catch up with a unified Germany.

And I recall reading somewhere a demographic study that argued that, minus post-1790 immigration, the population of the USA in 1976 would have been around 150 million ( in our timeline, it was 218 million).

But 30 million of them would have been black descendants of the slaves. Assuming another 5 million of other races only 75% of America would be white in 1976 and declining thereafter since blacks have had higher fertility than whites since 1976.

Short of that we have other 19th & early 20th century European nations to compare our fertility with. Since France had their Great Wave immigration at about the same time we did perhaps we can compare Imperial Germany which did not have immigration rates comparable to America or France.

France is a very poor poor proxy for the USA: smaller area, larger initial population, etc.

But 30 million of them would have been black descendants of the slaves. Assuming another 5 million of other races only 75% of America would be white in 1976 and declining thereafter since blacks have had higher fertility than whites since 1976.

Well, even with all that extra European immigration, White Anglos currently only make up 62% of the population:

Immigration has had only a modest impact on the nation’s age structure, but a striking one on its racial and ethnic makeup.8 Without immigration since 1965, the U.S. today would have a median age of 41, not 38. The nation would be 75% white instead of 62%. Hispanics would be 8% of the population, not 18%. And Asians would be less than 1% of Americans, instead of 6%.

The problem, of course, is that we would need another America (one with limited post 1790 immigration) to use as a control to really test the hypothesis.

Short of that we have other 19th & early 20th century European nations to compare our fertility with. Since France had their Great Wave immigration at about the same time we did perhaps we can compare Imperial Germany which did not have immigration rates comparable to America or France.

Germany's birth rate moderated from the high level it was in the mid-19th century and fell to, If I recall correctly, 3 before WWI. Imperial Russia just before the war had a birth rate in excess of 5; this coupled with Russia's industrialization was a motivation for Wilhelmine Germany to fight a war to dominate the continent before Russia could catch up with a unified Germany.

And I recall reading somewhere a demographic study that argued that, minus post-1790 immigration, the population of the USA in 1976 would have been around 150 million ( in our timeline, it was 218 million).

But 30 million of them would have been black descendants of the slaves. Assuming another 5 million of other races only 75% of America would be white in 1976 and declining thereafter since blacks have had higher fertility than whites since 1976.

Short of that we have other 19th & early 20th century European nations to compare our fertility with. Since France had their Great Wave immigration at about the same time we did perhaps we can compare Imperial Germany which did not have immigration rates comparable to America or France.

France is a very poor poor proxy for the USA: smaller area, larger initial population, etc.

But 30 million of them would have been black descendants of the slaves. Assuming another 5 million of other races only 75% of America would be white in 1976 and declining thereafter since blacks have had higher fertility than whites since 1976.

Well, even with all that extra European immigration, White Anglos currently only make up 62% of the population:

Immigration has had only a modest impact on the nation’s age structure, but a striking one on its racial and ethnic makeup.8 Without immigration since 1965, the U.S. today would have a median age of 41, not 38. The nation would be 75% white instead of 62%. Hispanics would be 8% of the population, not 18%. And Asians would be less than 1% of Americans, instead of 6%.

In practical terms, Hamilton best resembles a 2oth Century proponent of White Australia. Immigrants should be white and overwhelmingly from the British Isles. This worked very well until it was abandoned, not unlike the similar effect in America before 1965.

It is a fallacy that the White Australia policy ensured immigrants were “overwhelmingly from the British Isles”. They just had to be white, and as an entirely forseeable result were overwhelmingly from the failed parts of Europe that were least attractive to stay in – exactly the sort of immigrants that Hamilton warns against. An obvious result is that the principal criminal secret societies of the Mediterranean, the Mafia etc, all have flourishing Australian branches. Australia also admitted what can only be described as human vermin – SS war criminals from eastern Europe fleeing justice.

“And the idea that global immigration must be as successful as European immigration is as silly as the delusional assumption that all human groups are equal at cognition.”

All human groups are equal at understanding the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those are two completely different things, you are stating that everyone desires to be rich/successful, which, to put it mildly, takes no great insight . That however does not imply that everyone can be rich simply because they want it. Did you know that Africa usually tops the world surveys asking about general optimism for the future, but always makes it to the bottom the list of poorest, least developed, corrupt, education achievement etc. Now why is this, surely these should be the richest people on the planet ?

And while you are here, can you please explain how nations like Mexico just cannot seem to get it right, if all one needs to affluence is concepts of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" one would think they would have done this by now ?

“Those are two completely different things, you are stating that everyone desires to be rich/successful, which, to put it mildly, takes no great insight.”

Actually, YOU are making this statement, not I.

“Did you know that Africa usually tops the world surveys asking about general optimism for the future, but always makes it to the bottom the list of poorest, least developed, corrupt, education achievement etc. Now why is this, surely these should be the richest people on the planet?”

You are going off the reservation here. I’m not talking about Africa, the continent, and its myriad of issues. I am talking about an immigrant’s mindset when they arrive to America. Generally speaking, they come here knowing about how they want to live their life, how they want to exercise their freedoms, and how they want to become happy in their new country. Those are universal human traits.

“And while you are here, can you please explain how nations like Mexico just cannot seem to get it right”

Most Americans now firmly believe that the Emma Lazarus doggerel is an excerpt from the US Constitution. Or, if it's not, it surely should be. Another 'accomplishment' of decades of MSM propaganda.

Born on July 22, 1849 in New York City to a wealthy sugar refining family of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish descent, Emma Lazarus was the poet who wrote "The New Colossus." Aside from writing, Lazarus was also involved in charitable work for refugees. At Ward's Island, she worked as an aide for Jewish immigrants who had been detained by immigration officials.

After its initial popularity however, the sonnet slowly faded from public memory. It was not until 1901, 17 years after Lazarus's death, that Georgina Schuyler, a friend of hers, found a book containing the sonnet in a bookshop and organized a civic effort to resurrect the lost work. Her efforts paid off and in 1903, words from the sonnet were inscribed on a plaque and placed on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

(NPS)

This info pretty much kills my cherished hypothesis that EL was secretly an immigration restrictionist. The poem to me reads like a bitter satire on the open-door (to Europeans) policy. “The wretched refuse of your teeming shore” – yeah, who wouldn’t want some wretched refuse added to the population?

"I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures: but if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?"

This is where I feel Steve's arguments about immigration fall short and I hope he or iSteve readers address it. See, Jefferson is not asking rhetorical questions to which he already knows the answer. In his day, it really was an unknown whether an English Constitutional republic could just import vast numbers of foreigners willy-nilly from non-English despotic regimes and still continue to be an English-speaking constitutional democracy.

But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson's fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn't come to pass, not even close. So why would Americans set aside everything they know and suddenly start worrying about the current batch of immigrants? Sure, some of them may have idiotic notions of reconquista or jihad but why should they be any more successful than previous generations of papists, fascists etc.?

“But we already know how that experiment worked out, right? All of Jefferson’s fears seemed logical and reasonable but didn’t come to pass, not even close. ”
It is not clear what it means to say that mass immigration of white people who were not British or Dutch Protestants, as the founders of the USA were, worked out well. It seems so to the present population, but this population has been formed by mass “alien” immigration, and even Americans of founding-stock descent have been brought up to believe that the resulting composition of the USA is the best possible. Who can know what the people of the “Protestant Republic” would have thought of the USA of the 20th century?

Contact Steve Sailer

Email me at SteveSlr *at* aol*dot*com (make the obvious substitutions between the asterisks; you don’t have to capitalize an email address, I just included the capitals to make clear the logic — it’s my name without a space and without the vowels in “Sailer” that give so many people, especially irate commenters, trouble.)

iSteve Panhandling

Steve Sailer

I always appreciate my readers’ help, especially monetary. Here’s how you can help:

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.

Payments are not tax deductible.

Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Sixth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: “You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps.” You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphoneapp (Android and iPhone — the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google’s free Gmail email service. Here’s how to do it.

Presidents ideally should be in their 40s, 50s, and lower 60s. It’s a ridiculously hard job and just comparing the before and after pictures of office holders proves it. There’s a meme about a hypothetical Bernie Sanders presidency that shows before and after office. The after is the Crypt Ke...

A majority of babies being born are of color
This is a lie. It's been circulating since 2011 based on incorrect census population estimates that never panned out. The HHS tracks actual births and issues a report on it every year. In 2016, non-Hispanic white births made up 53.7% of all births i...

Joe,
This Californian is waiting for those old Dems to just retire and move off the stage already. At least Brown has announced that, with the 60 Minutes TV tour of his ranch. Maybe Pelosi can bunk there and take the others with her.

Biden the Groper will test the mettle of those Dem supporters. Do they go all #MeToo on him, or have their fellow travelers in the media studiously ignore any hint of scandal or airbrush it away? If he does address the matters at hand, expect that to be buried under some other breaking news eve...

"Unfortunately, we learned afterwards that there was a very picturesque area that we completely missed. I forget the name of it. I’ll try to look it up.
Edit: well that was quick. It’s called Black Rock. I got it on citydata.com. a person asked for “Caucasian areas of Bridgeport” and was...

Well, "Uncle Joe" will have to dispose of "Grandma Hillary" and the youngsters, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsome and Andrew Cuomo who all stand in his way. I am now 72 and while in decent shape, walk between two and three miles most days, I can't imagine having the stamina to perform the duties of PO...

Senator Diane Feinstein
Two Ns, as with Michele Bachmann.
She's been a senatrix (senatrice?) since 1992. The last male senators elected from the California Republic were Pete Wilson and Alan Cranston. Cranston died in the last century.
Californians missed S. I. Hayakawa, who passed away ...

And you haven't even gotten to the Biden groping / dropping the towel allegations OR his family's dealings in Ukraine.
The good news about any of these establishment pols is they wouldn't be where they are in the political orbit if they weren't totally compromised (an unmentioned fact that Tr...

This isn't just a problem in politics. Look at media and academia, where there has been a concerted effort to marginalize straight white males of Christian heritage born after 1965 or so since at least the late 80s.
The only younger white guys who make it big now are sycophants like Ross Dout...

Ronald Reagan was too old to be president, and showed signs of dementia while still in office (e.g., not being able to recognize the names of some of his own cabinet secretaries, while he was testifying in a civil trial), but he did not turn 78 until 17 days after his eight-year-long presidency h...

I know it is a long time ago now, but I have not been able to take Biden seriously since he was caught plagiarising the speech and biography of British Labour Partly leader Neil Kinnock during one of his earlier runs at the presidency.
The elephant in the room is that elephants never forget, and...

Beckow wrote:If Putin was the evil genius he is supposed to be, he would send one or two of them to Washington, pay for their lawyers, and watch the resulting circus. I suspect that DOJ did the remote, un-enforceable charges intentionally. So... how can we legally suggest this to Putin? I assume...

scrivener3 wrote:I thought the SCOUTS has held that the 1st amendment applies to foreign nationals residing in the US.Yes, no one seems to have remarked on the fact that if the Russians had just sneaked into the country illegally across the Mexican border, then their actions would have been prot...

Well people "value" things like opioids immensely. They go to great lengths to obtain them, and risk their lives to use them. Exploiting such "values" to become rich is not an indication of virtue.
" The Secretive Family Making Billions From the Opioid Crisis
You’re aware America is under...